Latest news with #autocracy
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
What Is A Fact? Unfortunately, In Court, It Is Whatever Donald Trump Says It Is
WASHINGTON – If Donald Trump declared tomorrow that the sky is green, does that mean it actually is green? How about if he decrees that raw lemons taste sweet, would they in reality no longer be sour? Unfortunately for the future of American democracy, the answer could well be that, yes, as a matter of law, Trump's factual assertions cannot be challenged and must therefore be presumed correct. The concept is known as the 'political question doctrine,' and whether and to what extent the U.S. Supreme Court applies it in major cases coming before it could determine whether the republic survives a president openly bent on autocracy. Trump has already announced that the United States is in an 'energy emergency' requiring that environmental laws be waived to speed up more oil drilling. He has declared a trade emergency that permits him to raise taxes on imports as he sees fit, without any input from Congress. He declared a 'Southern border' emergency, which in his view justifies deploying active duty troops for civilian law enforcement, despite a law prohibiting that. He has decreed that the presence of foreign criminals in the United States constitutes an 'invasion' that allows him to capture suspected illegal migrants and send them to an active war zone in Africa or a Central American prison as he sees fit. Not one of his justifications is accurate. The United States was producing more fossil fuels than ever before when Trump retook office in January. The country's balance of trade in goods has been negative for decades, even as the gross domestic product has continued to rise. By Trump's inauguration, illegal border crossings were at a four-year low. And to suggest that criminals committing crimes is the same thing as a foreign army attacking and seizing American territory is absurd on its face. Except, of course, in court, where his declarations are not viewed as absurd at all. Rather, just the opposite. The way the separation of powers has evolved over two centuries, the courts have the ability to rule on presidents' interpretations of the Constitution and laws, but not on their assertions of fact. Underlying this is the admittedly defensible theory that judges who do not have access to the information that a president does by dint of his office should not be second-guessing a president's decisions based on that information. (Like so many things in the federal government, this theory was not designed with an amoral, enthusiastic liar who appears determined to grab unlimited power in mind.) So even as judges across the country block Trump's executive orders, they feel obliged to point out that they are not disputing his assertions that the sky is green and lemons are sweet, but are merely ruling that the law does not permit him the actions he seeks based on those assertions. 'The political question doctrine prohibits the court from weighing the truth of those factual statements,' U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., who was appointed by Trump, wrote in a May 1 ruling blocking deportations under Trump's emergency order. 'Instead, the court determines whether the factual statements in the proclamation, taken as true, describe an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion.'' The Court of International Trade judges who struck down most of Trump's tariffs in his trade war against the world spent a full six pages of their 49-page ruling on the topic. 'This reliance on the political question doctrine is misplaced,' the three judges, one of them appointed by Trump, wrote in late May. After months of Trump issuing one dictatorial executive order after another, it is heartening for rule-of-law advocates that federal judges from across the country and across the political spectrum are reining him in. That doesn't mean, though, that democracy is out of the woods yet. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court will get these cases and will be forced to decide if Trump's decreeing that the sky is green or that Venezuela is invading the United States via a gang of criminals are 'non-justiciable' issues, as Trump's Department of Justice lawyers and outside allies have been arguing. Yes, that would be the same U.S. Supreme Court that a year ago dramatically broadened the immunity a former president has from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office. The decision helped Trump avoid a trial on charges related to his Jan. 6, 2021, attempted self-coup to remain in power after losing the 2020 election. Still, even lawyers who are vocal critics of Trump's disdain for rules and laws say they are hopeful that the high court will uphold the lower court rulings that find Trump's various orders illegal. 'Since the Supreme Court lives on the same planet as the rest of us, and not Planet Trump, and has already shown a propensity by at least seven of the judges to deny Trump's extreme positions, I expect him to flop there,' said Norm Eisen, who served as the top ethics lawyer in the Obama White House. The 7-2 ruling Eisen referenced was the extraordinary, middle-of-the-night order blocking the deportation of Venezuelans whom Trump officials were trying to spirit out of the country before judges could act. Justices, including all three appointed by Trump, seemed bothered that his administration was not dealing in good faith with the courts and understood that failing to act meant consigning a group of migrants to what could well be life sentences in an El Salvador prison infamous for torture. Yet even the follow-up, eight-page ruling elided the fundamental question of whether it was appropriate for Trump to declare an 'emergency' based on the criminal activity of some Venezuelans and to invoke the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act – which requires an 'invasion' or a 'predatory incursion' – to deport them. 'We did not on April 19 ― and do not now ― address the underlying merits of the parties' claims regarding the legality of removals under the AEA,' the seven justices in the majority wrote. If the justices decide that they must limit their review to legal questions and continue their deference toward the president's version of the underlying facts, that will likely be seen as an invitation for even worse abuses – perhaps even those that most Americans would consider unthinkable. Imagine, for example, if Trump issues an order in the late summer of 2028 finding that Venezuela or China or Canada or whichever country he is most angry at that day has been meddling in the presidential campaign and that he is therefore declaring an emergency and postponing the scheduled election until such time as he can ensure its security. What's more, he will not reveal the evidence behind this claim because it is classified. Under the political question doctrine, the courts have no business trying to ascertain the facts backing his assertions. What happens then? 'That is why it is essential the court draw some lines,' said Ty Cobb, a lawyer in Trump's first-term White House who is now a strident critic. Yes, the idea of Trump trying to cancel an election at first hearing seems conspiracy-theory-level far-fetched. Then again, so did the idea that a sitting president, having lost re-election, would sic a violent, armed mob on his own vice president and Congress in a last-ditch attempt to cling to power. Eisen said justices are certainly aware of Trump's autocratic impulses and that he is optimistic that the knowledge will inform their decisions. 'If they give him unchecked power,' Eisen said, 'he'll come for them next.' Harvard Challenges Trump's Ban On Incoming Foreign Students In New Legal Filing The Supreme Court May Have Granted The Trump Administration A Huge Gift An Ugly Attack On The Courts Hides In Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Stop bending the knee to Trump: it's time for anticipatory noncompliance
During the first 100-plus days of his presidency, Donald Trump has done his damnedest to remake the US in his image. Fearing Hurricane Donald, a host of universities, law firms, newspapers, public schools and Fortune 500 companies have rushed to do his bidding, bowing before he even comes calling. Other institutions cower, in hopes that they will go unnoticed. But this behavior, which social scientists call 'anticipatory compliance', smoothes the way to autocracy because it gives the Trump regime unlimited power without his having to lift a finger. Halting autocracy in its tracks demands a counter-strategy – let's call it anticipatory noncompliance. Examples of anticipatory compliance are legion. Goodbye, academic freedom: Trump means to impose his anti-intellectual ideology on higher education. He is using unproven allegations of antisemitism and claims of discriminatory diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs as an excuse to punish top-ranked private universities – initially hapless Columbia, then other schools including Harvard, Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern – by withholding billions of dollars in federal grants. My own university, the University of California, Berkeley, anticipates that it will be added to this list when Trump turns his attention to nationally renowned public universities. 'Be afraid' is the message for every university – threats to withhold funds from schools that use 'woke' language have prompted some that aren't even under the gun to censor themselves, excising words like 'race', 'gender', 'class' and 'equity' from course titles and curriculums. Anticipatory compliance also affects the actions of public schools. Worried that, because of their alleged 'wokeness', they will lose the federal dollars that deliver extra help to those who need it most, school systems have altered their curriculum to whitewash the historical record and restrict the literature available to students. Adieu, Toni Morrison and Rosa Parks. Goodbye, free press: Disney and Meta shelled out a combined $40m to settle baseless libel lawsuits brought by Trump, and Paramount is negotiating to make Trump's spurious 60 Minutes lawsuit disappear. On the eve of the 2024 election, Jeff Bezos, Amazon's founder and the owner of the Washington Post, pulled an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris, to stay in Trump's good graces. So did the Los Angeles Times, whose owner is a billionaire businessman. Goodbye, legal representation: Nine leading law firms succumbed to blackmail to get rid of the president's executive orders that punished a few firms for displeasing him. Collectively, they agreed to provide more than $1bn worth of pro bono legal work to causes of Trump's choosing. Now they're being asked to defend the coal industry and tariffs, which surely isn't what they expected. What's more, some top-drawer firms have stopped providing pro bono work on immigration lawsuits and other hot topic issues. Instead, they are putting their talent at Trump's disposal, neutering themselves while the White House makes mincemeat of the rule of law. Hello, toadying: To curry favor and avoid ridicule in a Trump tweet, dozens of major companies, ranging from Amazon to Pepsi, are treating the president as if he were king, reducing or abandoning their DEI programs without being specifically threatened. Those who bend the knee rationalize their actions as simply a prudent survival strategy. But that's delusory, for the historical record shows that anticipatory compliance paves the road to autocracy. Bullies like Trump always demand more from their supplicants – more money, more abandoning principles, more loyalty-oath behavior. Anticipatory compliance feeds the beast, showing authoritarians how much they can get away with. Here's the good news – anticipatory noncompliance is on the rise. Challenges to Trump's unconstitutional actions have emerged in higher and K-12 education, the legal profession and the corporate world. The citizenry is now making its voice heard. Spearheaded by Harvard's defiant pose, a growing number of colleges and universities are pushing back against Trump's outrageous demands. A recent statement from hundreds of college administrators declared that 'we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education'. Faculty senates in the Big 10 Academic Alliance crafted a 'mutual defense compact'; behind the scenes, the presidents of about 10 elite private universities are deciding what red lines they won't cross. Sign up to Fighting Back Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk. after newsletter promotion Rather than meekly comply with Trump's monarchical demand that public schools eliminate DEI initiatives or risk losing federal funds, 19 states have gone to court, contesting the administration's contorted reading of civil rights law. The CEOs that scaled back their companies' diversity programs misread the market and have suffered the consequences. Diversity is a popular goal that many investors and consumers take into account in their decisions. When Target rolled back DEI, the company had to confront a consumer boycott and a 17% stock drop. Meanwhile, corporations like Costco and Apple, which have stood firm, are on buyers' and investors' good guy list. Several law firms refused to cave in the face of Trump's blackmail tactics, instead taking the administration to court. Not only is that the right thing to do; it could turn out to be the profitable course. The judges are unequivocally on their side. And when Microsoft dropped a firm that surrendered to Trump, signing on with a firm that's taking the administration to court, it signaled that virtue may be financially rewarded. After months of quiescence, with the populace overwhelmed by the tsunami of outrages, popular opposition is emerging. On May Day, tens of thousands of demonstrators participated in nearly 1,000 anti-Trump demonstrations. Restoring democracy is no easy task, for it is infinitely easier to destroy than rebuild. It will take a years-long fight that deploys an arsenal of tactics, ranging from mass demonstrations and consumer boycotts to litigation and political organizing. It's grueling work, but if autocracy is to be defeated there's no option. 'Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced,' observed James Baldwin, in a 1962 New York Times article. A half-century later, that message still rings true. Courts have stood firm in their defense of the rule of law, pushing back against Trump's power-grab executive orders. Americans are participating in mass demonstrations nationwide and voting for Democratic candidates in local elections. What's more, Americans are voting with their wallets – spurred by a consumer boycott, the value of Tesla shares has plunged by close to $700bn from its peak a year ago. David Kirp is professor emeritus at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Have we passed peak Trump?
Have we reached peak Trump? Is it possible that we have arrived at a moment, a mere four months into his second term, when the president's capacity to do harm is diminishing? That is undeniably a provocative question. Like any US president, Donald Trump remains immensely powerful. It is early days; he can still cause plenty of damage – and certainly will. But after an initial flurry of activity when the opposition often seemed deer-in-the-headlights stunned, Trump's power to daze and paralyze may now be on a downward trajectory. Recognizing that possible shift is important to embolden resistance to his dangerous, would-be autocratic rule. Trump's notorious flood-the-zone strategy was initially effective. Before opposition could be mobilized to one outrage, there was another. Entire government agencies were ordered shut. Government employees were dispatched by the tens of thousands. Healthcare, scientific and medical research, foreign aid, government-funded independent media, the quest for a more equitable society were all stopped or stymied. Many of Trump's actions followed the classic autocrat's playbook as he deliberately attacked the checks and balances on his power. Republicans in Congress, prioritizing their own political future over the welfare of the nation, toed the line for fear of a primary challenge. Judges who ruled against him were subjected to intimidation and threats of impeachment. Law firms that sued him, or pursued cases he disliked, faced retaliation. Business leaders sidled up to him hoping to curry favor and avoid retaliation. Some journalists who criticized him were met with defamation suits or restrictions at White House briefings. Universities, as centers of independent thought, saw draconian funding cuts. Plans proceeded to remove the tax-exempt status of some private foundations and civic groups. Trump made a mark in his first few months in part because the brazenness and velocity of his actions encouraged a save-yourself mentality among many targets. Some law firms, universities and media outlets struck deals with him, hoping to protect themselves at the expense of the rule of law, academic freedom or freedom of the media. Yet over time, the resistance regrouped. More than 180 judges have ruled against some element of Trump's program, from his summary dismissal of government employees to his efforts to deport immigrants without due process. The courts were undoubtedly emboldened by Trump's tendency to overreach. His senior aides and officials, often chosen for loyalty over competence, have shown little inclination to rein him in. The blatant unconstitutionality of Trump's resulting actions – rejecting birthright citizenship despite its constitutional foundation, using the power of the government to retaliate against critics despite the first amendment – seem to have encouraged judges to abandon any presumptive deference to executive good faith. Many conservative lawyers are turning on him. Because of Trump's excesses, many of the setbacks have come even in the arena that was thought to be his strongest – immigration. The summary deportations of Venezuelan men to El Salvador's nightmarish mega-prison, under the pretext of a nonexistent 'war', have been stopped. The Tufts University student threatened with deportation evidently because she co-authored an op-ed in a student newspaper that criticized Israel has been freed. So have other foreign students detained for similar pro-Palestinian views. The former Columbia student and green card holder who led student protests against Israel is still in custody, but his case has highlighted the Trump administration's absurd claim, needed to circumvent first amendment protection of non-citizens on US soil, that his actions undermined US foreign policy. About half of Americans believe his deportations have 'gone too far'. Trump's disdain for the rule of law – his disparaging of judges who ruled against him, his refusal to conscientiously abide by judicial rulings – seems to have accomplished a remarkable transformation in the US supreme court, from a presumptive 6-3 majority in Trump's favor to one that on occasion will rule against him, such as its pronouncement that immigrants cannot be deported without due process. Many of the lower-court rulings are preliminary rather than decisions on the merits. Most are subject to appeal, and some have been reversed. But they have stymied many Trump initiatives. He has lost momentum. Harvard, after unsuccessfully trying to placate Trump, responded to ensuing over-the-top demands by suing his administration. Seemingly recognizing that they had overplayed, Trump officials reportedly sought a settlement, evidently hoping to avoid an adverse judicial precedent, as has now occurred in several suits brought by law firms challenging unconstitutional retaliation against them. Trump has upped the ante against Harvard with huge cuts in government funding and a threat to its tax-exempt status, but the courts have at least temporarily stopped his effort to bar the university from enrolling foreign students. Harvard's belated, yet important, leadership – a stark contrast with Columbia's unsuccessful appeasement – has galvanized other universities toward a collective defense. Law firms also have begun to band together, although many of the biggest ones still seem more concerned with preserving their considerable incomes than upholding their professional obligation to defend the rule of law. Private foundations are now consulting about how best to deter threats to their tax-exempt status. Although public protests have been fewer than during Trump's first presidential term, his public approval has plummeted. Elon Musk, once seemingly omnipresent as a Trump hatchet man, has retreated as people turn on Tesla and his other companies. Trump's foreign policy, a domain where presidential latitude is broad, has done no better at forcing acquiescence. Trump's erratic and arbitrary tariff policies have managed to shake consumer confidence and threaten inflation while slowing the economy and panicking the bond market. Trump's instinct to trust Putin not to use a ceasefire to rearm and reinvade Ukraine has run aground on Putin's persistent maximalist demands. Contrary to Trump's real-estate instincts, Putin's aim is not gaining a chunk of territory in eastern Ukraine but crushing its democracy so it will no longer serve as a model for Russians. That has led Trump, evidently more comfortable putting pressure on Ukrainian victims than his autocratic buddy in the Kremlin, to disengage from his mediating role. He has criticized Putin for continuing to bomb Ukrainian cities while imposing no consequences and refusing to authorize new US arms for Ukraine. Trump's initial proposal for ending the war in Gaza – 'solving' the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by expelling the Palestinians – was eagerly taken up by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu but stymied by the plan's blatant criminality and the refusal of even aid-dependent Egypt and Jordan to go along. Even Trump has come to recognize that Netanyahu is now the main obstacle to peace because of his determination to continue the war to preserve his far-right governing coalition and avoid prison on pending corruption charges. Successful resistance in places like Brazil and Poland provide Americans with certain lessons that they seem to be learning: Trump's attacks on the restraints on his power should be viewed not in isolation, but as part of a deliberate scheme to build an autocracy. Each step matters. He is attacking not just big law or Ivy League universities but democracy. Early opposition is important because resistance becomes harder over time as checks on presidential authority weaken. The temptation to save one's own skin should be resisted because it plays into the autocratic strategy of divide-and-conquer. A collective defense works best. Appeasement may seem like a way to calm the bully, but bullies see it as weakness, an invitation to demand more. These lessons will be important because Trump will inevitably issue new executive orders designed to advance his agenda and provoke opposition despair. Project 2025, his unacknowledged guidebook, had about 900 pages of ideas. He undoubtedly will concoct new 'emergencies' to justify extraordinary powers, having already declared eight. He could even spark a constitutional crisis by openly flouting a judicial order – a possibility that JD Vance has advanced. But the deluge of wild ideas – invading Greenland, renaming the Gulf of Mexico, making Canada the 51st state – are losing their shock value, whether as assertions of executive power or diversions from Trump's limited actual accomplishments. And Trump's seeming belief that he can spin reality through endless repetition of falsehoods is bumping up against significant parts of the media that continue to spotlight facts and the public's refusal to accept imposition of a post-truth world. Trump can still cause significant damage by legislation, such as threatened limits to Medicaid and food stamps, reaffirmation of Musk's slash-and-burn budgetary cuts, or large taxes on university endowments, but that route is more difficult than signing an executive order. The Republicans' razor-thin congressional majority requires either holding together virtually the entire Republican caucus despite its limited but real ideological diversity or reaching out to Democrats who so far have maintained a united front of opposition. Both will, to some extent, be moderating influences. And it won't be long before Republican attention turns from legislation to the threat of an electoral drubbing in the 2026 midterm elections, hints of which were already apparent in the election of a Democratic Wisconsin supreme court justice and the diminished votes to fill two safe Republican seats in Congress. I recognize it may be foolhardy to pronounce peak Trump. The president will never cease to amaze with his disdain for decency and democracy. But something real has happened in the time since he returned to the White House. The checks and balances of US democracy have proved remarkably resilient. The shock and awe of his early days has given way to a grinding of gears, a political program that, because of widespread resistance, is becoming more sound than fury. This is no time for despair. Resignation is wrong. Resistance is working. We must keep it up. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, is a visiting professor at Princeton's School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments, was published by Knopf and Allen Lane in February
The Guardian
29-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Trump's lawlessness is emboldening El Salvador's brutal regime
The Trump administration's agreement with President Nayib Bukele to detain US migrants deported to El Salvador without due process seems to have emboldened Bukele's autocratic regime. Last week, in a troubling sign of escalating repression, Salvadorian police detained Ruth López Alfaro, a prominent Salvadorian human rights lawyer at Cristosal, an organization fighting for human rights in Central America. Last year, the BBC recognized Ms López Alfaro as one of the 100 most inspiring and influential women in the world, describing her as 'an outspoken critic of the country's government and institutions' who 'conducted a broad social media campaign to promote political transparency and public accountability overseen by the citizens themselves'. This year, on 18 May, Salvadorian security forces detained her at her residence on embezzlement charges and held her incommunicado from her family and legal representatives for more than 40 hours. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has expressed 'deep concern' over reports of her enforced disappearance, and numerous human rights organizations have called for her release and protection of her safety and due process rights. Ms López Alfaro's detention comes at the crest of a repressive wave sweeping the country over the past month. In the week immediately preceding her arrest, 14 bus company owners were detained for allegedly disobeying Bukele's order on X that bus service would be free for a week in response to the chaos caused by the collapse of one of the president's signature public works projects. The crackdown continued when the military police broke up a peaceful demonstration near the president's private residence by members of an agricultural cooperative called 'El Bosque' pleading for his help to protect their homes and land against an eviction notice. Several people were arrested, including an evangelical pastor, Jose Perez, and the next day, the group's lawyer, Alejandro Henriquez. (Earlier this year, Mr Henriquez had filed a case with Ms López Alfaro before the Salvadorian supreme court challenging the Bukele regime's repeal of a seven-year ban on gold mining in El Salvador, despite the repeal's risk of causing severe environmental damage). Two days after Ms López Alfaro's detention, El Salvador's legislature, controlled by Bukele's New Ideas party, passed a Russian-style 'foreign agent' law requiring anyone who receives foreign funding to register with the government and pay a 30% tax on such funding or else face sanctions. President Bukele had previously announced the legislation as a reprisal for civil society organizations' support of El Bosque's pleas to keep their land. The law, which aims to crush independent journalism and civil society organizations that constituted the last remaining vestiges of democracy in El Salvador, was enacted in an hour and 24 minutes without debate by Bukele's legislature. This campaign of repression has been bolstered by Trump's agreement to pay Bukele millions of dollars to confine up to 300 US deportees – mostly Venezuelans – in El Salvador's maximum-security Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot). (Ms López Alfaro was leading the legal team supporting families of the Venezuelan detainees to document their case and present habeas corpus claims to the Salvadorian courts.) The United States does not lack detention facilities to hold immigration detainees. But Bukele's detention facilities offer a zone unconstrained by US court orders, the rule of law, or even the most basic of human rights protections. These are powers Bukele has accumulated at alarming speed, by dismantling institutional checks, purging courts, eviscerating due process protections, and weaponizing pretrial detention. In May 2021, Bukele's party used its legislative super-majority to fire all five justices of the constitutional chamber of the supreme court as well as the attorney general, thereby dismantling constraints on his power. Then, using the same fast track procedure, a legislative decree forced every judge older than 60 or with more than 30 years' service – about a third of the bench – into retirement. Later that year, the reconstituted constitutional chamber found Bukele eligible for re-election despite seven articles in the Salvadorian constitution that clearly prohibit presidential re-election. The following year, El Salvador's Congress imposed a state of exception to counter gang violence. The state of exception suspended constitutional due process rights and granted extraordinary powers to security forces to detain citizens at their discretion. Although it was initially introduced for 30 days, it has continuously been renewed and remains in place. While the murder rate did fall significantly, the human rights violations caused by the state of exception have been staggering. Since March of 2022, more than 85,500 people have been arbitrarily detained in mass round ups, leading to the highest incarceration rate in the world. Torture and abuse of prisoners is rampant, and have led, according to Cristosal's investigations, to the deaths of 387 people – including four infants – in custody. Many prisoners have been held for years without trial and without their families even knowing if they are alive. A 2023 procedural overhaul allows unnamed 'faceless judges' to conduct mass trials of up to 900 defendants at a time – a clear violation of their right to a defense and the presumption of innocence. Many of these lawless procedures are now being used to persecute Ms López Alfaro and others who have stood up to the Bukele regime. The agreement between the US and El Salvador is not only itself unlawful; it enables and rewards lawlessness. It violates the US's obligation to ensure due process and to comply with its 'non-refoulement' obligation that prohibits sending any person to a place where there is a substantial risk of torture and/or cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment of punishment. The agreement also appears to aid Bukele's cover-up of a secret deal he allegedly struck with the MS-13 gang to boost his popularity at home. A 2022 US Justice department indictment of MS-13 gang members describes in detail how Bukele agreed to protect the gang in exchange for it engaging in fewer public murders and supporting his party during the 2021 legislative elections. US deportations of MS-13 gang leaders facing criminal prosecution in the US was reportedly a priority for Bukele, apparently to prevent them from disclosing details of that secret deal in US courts. Bukele has denied the deal, but seems intent on suppressing the facts. Several journalists from the leading independent news outlet El Faro were forced to flee the country after learning that his regime was preparing to arrest them for publishing interviews with MS-13 gang members describing the deal. Trump and Bukele peddle a brand of punitive populism that offers security at the expense of democracy and human rights – a seductive promise for electorates anxious about public safety. But this false bargain serves as a pretext to expand their own power, exploit public office and diplomacy for personal gain, and institutionalize cruelty in public policy. The people of the United States and El Salvador deserve better. The lawless collaboration that led to the disappearance of hundreds of men – transferred from the US without due process into indefinite detention at Bukele's Cecot – has forged a common cause. It unites Americans who fear the loss of their democracy with Salvadorians like Ruth López Alfaro and countless others who have already lost their freedom to autocracy. The futures of democracy in both nations are now inextricably linked through the mutually reinforcing tyranny of their leaders. Noah Bullock is the executive director of Cristosal, a human rights organization based in El Salvador. Amrit Singh is a professor of the practice of law at Stanford Law School
New York Times
26-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Erdogan Might Have Finally Gone Too Far
It has been more than two months since the police in Turkey detained Ekrem Imamoglu, the popular mayor of Istanbul and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's likely opponent in Turkey's next presidential election. The international reaction has been largely muted. Turkey is rightly recognized as a geopolitically important — even indispensable — NATO ally, a dominant military power in post-Assad Syria and the natural host to delegations to negotiate peace in Ukraine. If Mr. Erdogan, who has long had authoritarian tendencies, is now setting Turkey on the path to full-fledged autocracy, the international community does not seem poised to prevent him. Nevertheless, he might still fail. In Turkey the largest protests in a decade and, crucially, the lack of support by important political allies suggest that Mr. Erdogan's determination to remain in power might have finally pushed him to go too far. Mr. Erdogan has dominated Turkish politics since the early 2000s. For a long time he continued to enjoy popular support, even as he jailed opponents. He continued to consolidate power and, while elections were not fair, the opposition could still win. Last year his Justice and Development Party, or A.K.P., had a poor showing in municipal elections when disaffected conservative voters, tired of persistently high unemployment and inflation, shifted toward the Republican People's Party, known as the C.H.P. Those elections also returned Mr. Imamoglu as the mayor of Istanbul for a second term. Mr. Imamoglu's arrest in March signaled something new: that in elections in Turkey, popular opposition politicians may simply not be allowed to run. Mr. Erdogan appeared to be borrowing from the playbook of President Vladimir Putin of Russia. But importantly, since Turkey — unlike Russia — does not possess the natural resources that could help fund autocratic rule, Mr. Erdogan is constrained by the need for foreign investment, state support and a majority of the public's support or at least acquiescence to his actions. It was immediately clear that the arrest rattled markets — the lira, Turkey's currency, fell to a record low — and was deeply unpopular with the population. One poll suggested that 65 percent of people disapproved, and many thousands of people crowded into the streets. A few days after Mr. Imamoglu's arrest, his party conducted a symbolic primary, in which party members and sympathizers anointed the mayor as their candidate for president. It's possible that this public anger could give way to apathy before the next elections are scheduled to be held, in 2028. Mr. Erdogan may be banking on it. But some of the president's political allies in the state are signaling that they, too, object. The far-right Nationalist Movement Party, or M.H.P., was critical to Mr. Erdogan's re-election as president in 2018 and 2023 and forms part of the A.K.P.'s current parliamentary majority. But a few weeks after Mr. Imamoglu's arrest, Devlet Bahceli, the leader of the M.H.P., urged a quick resolution. 'If he is innocent, he should be released,' Mr. Bahceli was reported to have said. M.H.P. loyalists hold many positions in the state bureaucracy and the judiciary, and the party and Mr. Bahceli have been central to the peace process with the Kurdistan Workers' Party, an insurgent group known by its Kurdish initials, P.K.K. The disarming and disbanding of the P.K.K., which the group announced this month, is essential for Turkey's national security and improved relations with its neighbors, but the arrest of Mr. Imamoglu could still imperil this process by undermining the premise that the Kurds will be able to pursue a political solution. Despite Turkey's ubiquity on the world stage, it is still geopolitically vulnerable. Russia has historically competed with Turkey for dominance in the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and the Caucasus. But above all, Turkey fears a Kurdish alliance with Israel; Foreign Minister Gideon Saar of Israel has described the Kurdish people as victims of Turkish and Iranian oppression and as Israel's 'natural ally.' Turkey has a history of turning toward democracy in the face of perceived threats to its national security. In 1950 an authoritarian president, Ismet Inonu, recognized that Turkey, threatened by the Soviet Union, needed to be fully accepted by the West for its own protection. Turkey held multiparty elections, which Mr. Inonu lost, and he duly resigned. Decades later, at the turn of this century, a push for membership in the European Union prompted successive Turkish governments to carry out liberal reforms required for its entry. It's time for Turkey to turn toward democracy again. Others have recognized this. It's time for Mr. Erdogan to listen.
